The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 3201 - 3220 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
There was a good segment on Democracy Now re the NRA. Some guy was saying even the gun manufacturers have to toe the line and that the NRA almost put Smith & Wesson out of business for implementing some voluntary controls!

What a bizarre organization, I can't believe that people who advocate for easy criminal access to guns and armed guards and bullet proof glass in elementary schools have a national presence. I hope Bloomberg crushes them when he's done being mayor of NYC.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
do you THINK for one second, that more legislation-redundant for the most will have any bearing on those ill sickos outside the law?

Well, moran, since most guns used in crimes are obtained through straw purchases... YES.

Who needs 2 guns a week?

Why NOT check the mental health and past purchases of someone before selling them a killing machine?



Oh, right, because the government is going to take over... blahblahblah.

Jesus Christ! Thank god gun nuts are out numbered.

Your right to KEEP AND BEAR arms will remain intact. There WILL be stricter regulations regarding gun sales and the types of guns you can own. Deal with it.



the gun stores are being swamped upon by citizens of CONN to buy ,,,,GUNS, Guns of ALL TYPES.

At inflated prices no doubt. And the gun nuts accuse others of being mindless sheep. Hahahaaa. Fuking idiots!



More idiotic ramblings of clueless gun nuts...

"When you clamp down where basically everything is restricted, it feels like you're infringing on Second Amendment rights," Shari Reilly, a Connecticut gun owner, told NBC News. She said she depends on the larger magazines to protect her family.

Basically everything? Really? Idiot.

Well, thank god FEELINGS don't make the laws honey.

"I don't train for someone who is breaking into my house. If I miss, am I stuck because you limit me to seven rounds or 10 rounds?" she added.

Uh, says above you depend on larger magazines to protect your family. Then you say you don't train for someone who is breaking into your house? Did you pass elementary school?

Listen, if you can't stop an intruder with 7 rounds, you'd be better off just calling the police anyway.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:14pm PT
There is legislation being introduced in many a state that will make a semi auto shotgun illegal..

Dear Mr. Gun Nut... did you not say it should be left up to the states to make their own laws? Or did you mean just the laws you agree with?

If/when it is passed, its constitutionality can be challenged... if you are not familiar with the procedure, I suggest you take a high school level civics class.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
Imagine the USA without the 2nd, 4th, 1st and 10th?

Why imagine something that ain't never going to happen? I might as well imagine a man in the sky who sent his only son to die for the sins I didn't commit 2000 years ago.


Maybe you can only hear it from your own people... from the Fux at Faux...

Gun control is completely consistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And President Obama is on target with the great American tradition of proposing gun control laws for Congressional approval as well as by issuing executive orders on gun control.

The only opinion that matters here is the Supreme Court’s opinion. And the high court has ruled, several times, that the president, the Congress, state and local government all have the power to regulate guns. The Court reaffirmed this interpretation as recently as 2008 in the landmark case, District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged this in his opinion to Heller. He wrote that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

To be crystal clear: President Obama has the legal authority to enact gun safety measures through executive order. That is not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of fact. And there is historical precedent.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/16/what-everybody-needs-to-know-about-our-constitution-and-gun-control/#ixzz2PWJwgy2H


ALL decisions would be left to the FED cluster f*ck we call our govt. Sounds cooooool eh?

No. Sounds like uninformed, paranoid gibberish.
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
Remember folks, those same wonderful foks who want to restrict guns today could be screaming for regulations on climbing tomorrow. It,s just a matter of how many people engage in such risky behavior, and what the public sentiment feels should be a reasonable restriction to protect us and/or the environment from those pesky bullets and bolts that are becoming so pervasive in our ultra-modern society. Remember when cell-phones in your car were legal?
Geez, next they,ll be regulating gay marriage!
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
Seriously, at what point exactly DO you start shooting at the govt? I mean, I work for the state- am I at risk? ,cause ya know, bans seem stupid and ineffective to me, but universal backgrounds seem fair. Do I need to carry a gun to defend myself from my govt, or from those who see me AS the govt? Maybe I don,t need one at all- perhaps pepper spray would be sufficient to combat the drug-crazed ex,s kid who already attacked me once and later stole her guns, or his buddy i put in jail for burglary, who showed up at my house after being released...
Maybe a good dose of situational awareness is all I need?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
Seriously, at what point exactly DO you start shooting at the govt?

Obviously not a serious question.




I mean, I work for the state- am I at risk?

Yes! But more from GUN NUTS who think you are coming after their guns.

Do I need to carry a gun to defend myself from my govt, or from those who see me AS the govt?

See above.

perhaps pepper spray would be sufficient to combat the drug-crazed ex,s kid who already attacked me once and later stole her guns, or his buddy i put in jail for burglary, who showed up at my house after being released...
Maybe a good dose of situational awareness is all I need?

I'd say stick with the gun for personal protection and hope you don't have to use it. I'd also suggest not making threats towards government officials/employees and/or members of the general public and you WILL BE JUST FINE.


And "they" are not going to ban climbing any more than they are going to ban motorcycle jumping.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:10pm PT
Yes,

and now we once again go dancing down the Slippery Slope of Irrational Fear

smoke some reefer and you WiLL become a heroin addict they screamed in the 50s and 50s

try to pass some minor legislation on straw buyers and background checks and next the feds WILL be coming to take my guns away

this is an effective counter argument, and works very well to influence the easily gullible


hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
See Auburn quarry.
Any raptor closure of your choice.
Regulations at Red Rocks, J-tree, etc.

Shooting at the govt? Absolutely a serious question, since so many believe that to be at least partially the intention of the 2nd. If its a logical intent of the 2nd, then my question should bear out a logical answer.

Yeah. some parts of my post were inflamatory. Specifically.
Dover

Trad climber
New England
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:28pm PT
But if tomorrow they seek to expand,, and want to take away my eight round semi auto handgun? Or take away my semi auto shotguns? Legislation being proposed right now in NV does just that- takes away my bird hunting weapons. That is infringment of the most blatant type.

You can move to Connecticut.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
You mean like suggesting that smoking near children is worse than holding them at gun point?

Yes, actually, statistically speaking, it is worse. Demonstrably worse by more than an order of magnitude.

The fact that it's not as dramatic or proximate of a threat makes it no less a threat. It is in fact a much more serious health and welfare issue for our children than are guns, again by more than an order of magnitude.

If you need drama in order to get the point, you should watch a kid die of lung cancer. Then comfort yourself: "Well, at least the kid wasn't traumatized by a gun. Slow death by totally preventable and completely caused lung cancer at age ten is much, much better than the unspeakable horror of gun threat!"

Come on. Horrible death is horrible death. Preventable death is preventable death. Be consistent, and levy your hand-wringing where the numbers most validate it.

The fact is that a subsidized tobacco industry has at least as much sway over national policy as does the gun lobby. However, like the hundreds of thousands of totally preventable deaths caused by smoking, things are more hidden and subtle. Nothing subtle about a gun in your face! So, the thing doing more damage continues to do that damage because it lacks the requisite dramatic force. There's nothing sexy about a news item: "47 children died today in an LA hospital of lung cancer. Investigators have uncovered that every one of them lived in a home where both parents were two-pack-a-day smokers. More on this developing story at 9!"

Yup, as a country, we now make our decisions in sound-bites and drama.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
See Auburn quarry.
Any raptor closure of your choice.
Regulations at Red Rocks, J-tree, etc.

Ah, yes, I should have known... site specific restrictions based on resource protection in overcrowded areas and/or liability of a fuking choss pile... right then, anyone and everyone should be able to buy whatever guns they want, as long as they are not convicted felons.

Shooting at the govt? Absolutely a serious question, since so many believe that to be at least partially the intention of the 2nd. If its a logical intent of the 2nd, then my question should bear out a logical answer.

That is sad. I thought you were one of the more reasonable gun owners here. 226 years ago, when everyone had muzzle loaders, shooting at "the government" might actually accomplish something. Today it is as silly as using mercury to cure dementia.

In reality, nothing is worse,

...than HYPERBOLE!

and in fact there is a general downward trend in homicide or gun use in crimes.

Up, down, whatever... there are always 2 sides to the facts, right?

So no we dont have to worry about "shooting it out" with the gubbmint,,YET. But if tomorrow they seek to expand,, and want to take away my eight round semi auto handgun? Or take away my semi auto shotguns?

So now we know where your limit is. Others have different limits. Those who refuse to live within the limits set forth by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS elected by the PEOPLE of OUR GREAT NATION become outlaws. That's how it is, that's how it has always been. You know that whole "personal responsibility" thing we keep hearing about? Well, you are personally responsible for your choices, legal or not.


The fact that it's not as dramatic or proximate of a threat makes it no less a threat. It is in fact a much more serious health and welfare issue for our children than are guns, again by more than an order of magnitude.

You do realize how easy it is to walk away from someone holding a cigarette in your face, don't you? You do realize that LEGISLATION has been VERY effective at reducing the exposure to second hand smoke, right? But somehow it won't work for guns?

Pretty sure EVERY child is exposed to anti-smoking education in school. Gun safety... nope.

I'm all for prosecuting parents who expose their kids to second hand smoke! Let's do it.
frank wyman

Mountain climber
montana
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:44pm PT
Lets imagine we are back at square one, You are writing the Constitution for a new nation. How do you specify the right to keep and bear arms and what, if any limitations do you place on it?...just wondering..
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:52pm PT
Um, you took the questin wrong. I want to know how other people see that as justification

As to site specific closures?. Auburn got closed because somene died. Raptor closures are good, but only needed due to the higher volume of climbers these days. Same with bolt wars. As traffic increases, so will regulation.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
i could do no better than those BRILLIANT men of the colonies..

Who DELIBERATELY guaranteed the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, but said nothing about guaranteeing the right to buy any gun, any time, with little or no inconvenience.

the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” -Conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia


As traffic increases, so will regulation.

As population density increase, so will violent crime.
As violent crime increases, so will gun sales.
As gun sales increase, SO SHOULD REGULATION.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 04:01pm PT
Those who refuse to live within the limits set forth by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS elected by the PEOPLE of OUR GREAT NATION become outlaws.

It's interesting that you fall back to this position. I mean, I realize that it's the "obvious" position, and I'm not denigrating it. I call it a "fall back" because it is not the case that "the people" of our great nation are doing the electing.

It's far too huge a topic to properly address in this context, but the results of a rat's nest of issues is that a small subset of the eligible "people" even vote. And one of the reasons behind that fact includes that most of "the people" of this country are in effect voting a vote of no confidence in this entire process because it is clear to everybody that it is bought, sold, and paid for.

Even you only moan about the corruption of it when the lobbying is being effectively done against a position you hold. Democrats, Repubs, it doesn't matter, really. Almost all of them a few years ago voted to repeal the campaign finance reform act. By that one vote they all hung up their shingles in as flagrant a fashion as possible, saying: "Corporations, bring it! We're open for business," and in so doing utterly broke faith with "the people" you so quaintly refer to. Yet, nobody's throwing the bums out of office. Every last one of the, regardless of party affiliation.

Even I am tempted every election to say, "Wow, no good choices here. Can I write in, 'Any warm body of any mammalian species other than the listed candidates?' What's the point of this spectrum of 'candidates?' I'm just not going to waste my time this go-round." But I dutifully select the lessor of the evils (as I see it). Most people in this country that could vote don't even do that.

What we have in this country is one majority faction after another. Ironically, it's a majority of the minority!

And, yes, if it goes too much further, there will be blood in the streets. Let's see the economic crisis that emerges when the dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency. That's "when" not "if." It's going to be a whole new world when we lose the ability to print our way out of debt and the inevitable inflation hits. Again, that's "when," not "if." Then you'll see who "the people" really are, and many, many "good, law-abiding citizens" are going to be outlaws.

I'm not talking "run for the hills." I'm talking things like the purchase/ownership of things like gold and silver being illegal. I'm talking things like debt-restructuring that will (as always) be in the interests of the banks (and government) rather than in our interests. And so on.
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
Regulate a choss pile due to liability? Whu-hut?! So thats ok for some asshat to choose what rocks are appropriate to climb? Care to re-evaluate?
hillrat

Trad climber
reno, nv
Apr 4, 2013 - 04:15pm PT
How about permits to climb in the valley at all?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 04:19pm PT
But, of course, those other countries shouldn't have outlawed guns, and prevented those deaths, because there are still other forms of preventable deaths that result in more deaths than guns do.

Actually, yeah. The shouldn't have. The point is that a FREE society entails risks (to all, including children) that a police state does not entail. If the euro-democracies want to legislate away more and more of their liberties, that doesn't mean that we should.

The last thing the USA was ever intended to be was yet another European Socialist Democracy. Madison and Hamilton BOTH very specifically stated that this was the LAST thing this nation was to become. Want me to quote some Federalist Papers passages?

No, of course not. Because the stock response to what our founders intended for this nation is: The Constitution was written to be a fluid document, so that we could adapt and change with the times.

The fact that this "argument" completely ignores the principles that are changeless and devolves into faction just rolls right off like rain water.

Furthermore, the "it's been proven to work" line doesn't fly. It has not been proven to work. Show me one correlation, and I'll show you another.

One thing Ron's got right for SURE is that if you are serious about reducing gun violence across the board, you need to reduce GANGS. After accidents and suicides, gun deaths are perpetrated almost exclusively by gangs and against other gang members. Oh, but, that gets all racial up in the hood.

However, when you see a gang-banger with that little teardrop tattooed under the corner of their eye, what you are seeing is a giant, neon, flashing sign that broadcasts: "I am a murderer."

Fine. Open season. Even a bounty on such trash. Shoot on sight. Yup, it would be bloody and messy for awhile as "the people of this great nation" take their nation BACK from these punks. But we lack the WILL to actually hold these pricks accountable for what they ADVERTISE that they do, and what they do in plain sight.

It's a free speech issue to be able to wear gang colors? Really? Well, perhaps in the spirit of another fundamental principle, that of self defense, we should consider that "speech" as a proximate threat and respond accordingly.

Your making guns a bit harder for law-abiding citizens to get is NOT going to even touch the fundamental problem.

Again, I have NO problem with such laws. Have at it. I've been saying that all along. Do it! But follow up, as you say, and making smoking in the home illegal too. KIDS cannot just walk away from the smoking going on around them. It's in their HOMES. So, fight that fight while you're at it. Then at least I'll believe that you're more than talk. So, yeah, pass all the laws you want.

But just don't claim the moral high ground. You don't own it.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 4, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
I'm talking things like the purchase/ownership of things like gold and silver being illegal.

That baffles me. I've never seen the value in gold and silver... unless you are filling teeth, hunting werewolves, or building electronics... and you need very little for the latter.

Regulate a choss pile due to liability? Whu-hut?! So thats ok for some asshat to choose what rocks are appropriate to climb? Care to re-evaluate?

I'm not saying it is right. I'm saying that's what happened. Auburn was closed because someone died, right? Do you think they closed it to prevent more deaths, or because they didn't have the resources to deal with potential liability issues?


yet another European Socialist Democracy. Madison and Hamilton BOTH very specifically stated that this was the LAST thing this nation was to become. Want me to quote some Federalist Papers passages?

Yes, please do. I didn't even know a European Socialist Democracy existed in the late 1700's... so I googled it... according to Wikipedia:

"The origins of social democracy have been traced to the 1860s, with the rise of the first major working-class party in Europe"
Messages 3201 - 3220 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews